Saturday Jul 5 2008
All times are London time

Search Quotes in the FT.com site
FT Logo

April 1, 2008

Would John McCain ask the British to man a “Basra surge”?

basra.jpgOf all the presidential candidates, John McCain certainly has the biggest differences with Gordon Brown over how to handle Basra. Over at the Spectator Coffee House, James Forsyth has picked up some “straight talk” on British efforts to bring order to Iraq’s second biggest city. McCain says the British failed to counter the Iranians as they “moved into Southern Iraq”. “These are the penalties we continue to pay for the very bad mishandling of the war for nearly four years while they became solidly entrenched,” he added.

This reminded me of some of McCain’s more explicit criticisms of the British withdrawal plans. In February, he told reporters that he “did not think it was a good idea” for the British to draw down troops last year.

He softened the blow at the time with some warm remarks about the British commitment. (”I understand the British domestic situation and I very much appreciate the service and sacrifice the British military made in Iraq…Obviously we’d have liked to see them stay longer but the enormous contribution they made in Iraq and Afghanistan I have to just be grateful for.”)

But I expect this would have given little comfort to British officials wary of his ambitions in Iraq should he be elected president.  Would McCain request that the British take part in a Basra “surge”? And would he embarrass Gordon Brown by sending US troops to Basra if the prime minister said no?

One Response to “Would John McCain ask the British to man a “Basra surge”?”

Comments

  1. The British government’s problems on Iraq are two-fold: first, they lied repeatedly about the reasons for the war, and then did next to nothing to prepare the population for the conflict, its costs and consequences. Secondly, because the UK’s cities are fizzing hot pots of islamic radicalism, the government has downplayed the role of the forces and tried at every opportunity to hide them in bases to keep casualty figures down.

    If the US and Canada had behaved this way in WWII, the equivalent would have been placing the majority of troops in a giant base somewhere near Brighton, telling North Americans to not worry and go out and get pissed and laid rather than buy war bonds.

    Posted by: Bob Macdonald | April 1st, 2008 at 1:41 pm | Report this comment

Post a comment

Comment Policy




As a final step before posting the comment, please type the two words you see in the image beloweight numbers in the audio clip; this test is to prevent automated robots from posting comments.


More FT Blogs and Forums

  • Economists' Forum Leading economists and the FT's chief economics commentator, Martin Wolf, debate the big issues

  • Gideon Rachman's blog The FT's chief foreign affairs commentator on world issues and his travels

  • Brussels Blog By our Brussels writers

  • Clive Crook's blog The FT's chief Washington commentator blogs about intersection of politics and economics

  • The Undercover Economist Tim Harford's blog on economics in everyday life

  • Willem Buiter's Maverecon The LSE professor blogs on 'economics, politics, ethics, religion, culture, free and open source software (FOSS), and whatever'

  • John Gapper's blog FT chief business commentator talks about business, finance, media and technology

  • Management Blog A forum for the latest thinking about the issues that preoccupy managers around the world

  • FT Alphaville Instant market news and commentary for finance professionals

  • Dear Lucy Columnist Lucy Kellaway and readers solve your workplace woes

  • FT Tech Blog Our San Francisco and world correspondents look at the intersection of technology and business